Technology: Making Crap Soldiers.

If this is in the wrong forum then Mods please change.

Over the past few years there has been a large influx of technologies that are meant to aid and advance our millitary capabilities.

In some senses it does. However at what cost?

This tech is an example of the new tech available. It locates the enemy for the soldiers and warns them on shots fired. This seems good to the casual observer but from an infantry purist perspective it is a further loss of hard earnt and trained fieldcraft, personal skills that infantrymen should know without tech.

Locating the enemy via the "crack and thump" method and observation is bread and butter stuff. An infantryman should be able to give a direction and distance of the enemy just by listening to the crack and thump of rounds fired in the troops direction.

Then there is navigation. Troops now use satellite tech to navigate and bring in fire missions rather than the very low tech map and compass. A soldier should be able to navigate without the aid of technology, and bring down artilery with skills aquired in training.

Technology breaks down.

Good fieldcraft does not.

We are in danger of these bread and butter skills being lost, and if they are, and the tech fails, then whats left is a few useless and probably dead soldiers.

Real infantrymen are well versed and practiced for every eventuality and relys more on their skills rather than technology that adds more weight to what they have to carry in terms of equiptment and batteries and time wasted in maintaining these devices.

A team of well trained and lightly equipt infantry will out manouver any troops in the world.

I just got off of a 5 year active duty contract a few months ago.

1. Not all soldiers get the newest tech, only select units for testing.
2. When it gets approved and distributed (GPS Nav, AKA blue force tracker) only the squad leader or at most 2 teams in a squad usually get it because of cost and sensitivity of the gear.
3. EVERY soldier learns basic soldier skills first. These skills are drilled in quarterly.
-Land navigation with a compass and map (intersection,resection,dead recogning)
-Shooting with iron sights up to 300 meters away(quarterly qualification)
-First aid training. Turnicates, sucking chest wounds, treaks' and so forth.

Interesting idea I take no affence just wrong for this reason. You want to start a topic about soldiers being crap because of something research discipline levels and the way the Army is retaining people by lowering standards.
(I know I cant spell I was a SGT not a scribe)

I am well aware of how military procurement works, and even more so being a proffessional infantryman of 2 decades experience.

I know that field testing is selective, however some of this gets pushed through because of political preassure.

The danger of losing those skills is not imminent, however in due course they will be lost and forgotten.

That is the point i am making.


ETA: There is no such thing as "just being a sergeant"..

Every recruit is taught basic soldiering skills including fieldcraft during training. The "further" skills we are taught now are representative of the technologically advanced tools we have acquired. It seems to me that going by your reasoning OP, we should still teach infantrymen swordsmanship and the such.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Every recruit is taught basic soldiering skills including fieldcraft during training. The "further" skills we are taught now are representative of the technologically advanced tools we have acquired. It seems to me that going by your reasoning OP, we should still teach infantrymen swordsmanship and the such.

No.

Basic training is basic. Fieldcraft is honed and built on with time and experience.

No soldier goes to his unit the finished article.

In my experience I have had to retrain recruits from bad habits in terms of personal skills. For example something as simple as zig zagging into and out of firing positions, moving after every two shots, battle discapline, hard routine and so on.

Technology breaks down, needs constant maintanance, creates more weight to carry, and takes training time away from fieldcraft to the use of this tech.

If on a long range advance to contact your equiptment fails, then the soldier must revert to fieldcraft. If fieldcraft has been neglected in favour of technology, then in that instance you have a group of ill effective sitting ducks.

Technology should never take the place of good fielcraft.


As for you sword comment. Dont be obsurd

reply to post by Yissachar1


Star and flag for bringing up a very good point, field-craft. With all of this new technology, and several generations of soldiers use them, and do not use the soldier stay alive skills they are taught, the technology will only work for them until it breaks down, and all tech eventually breaks down. Technology, as always, is a double-edged sword, both good and bad. Sadly, most technology goes to the building of weapons systems.

reply to post by Yissachar1


Then I guess it must be a difference of nationality. I am from Australia, here in the ADF we are taught all the things you have mentioned, instructors even seek to neglect any technological advantage we may have at this current state, so we tend to pursue the training adhering to the original manual. Fieldcraft was the most important aspect of training here, they would be up your ass if you got it wrong.

Upon finishing basic, and pursuing IET as a Rifleman, they initially taught weapons, and an entire module of fieldcraft which built upon the subjects in basic. Maybe it would depend on the instructor, but so far it does not seem to me that these essential skills are dismissed for more "technological" training.

As for my swordsmanship statement, I was just trying to make a point as it seemed to me that going by your reasoning we would still teach archaic methods of warfare.

You bring up a great point, S&F.

The counter argument would be, however, that we are moving forward into a time when there will be fewer and fewer actual soldiers on the ground, and thus the "new" infantry will be one adept at using technology as opposed to being in the field.

As tech advances, things like drones and the such will replace more and more soldiers on the ground. Now, i am very anti-war, but if we are going to put our brave men and women in these situations, I think the focus SHOULD be on keeping them in the least vulnerable positions possible.

There is a level of 'toughness'(not the correct term, but you get my point) that can only be acquired in the field, but I hope there comes a day when MOST soldiers are never actually in the field, and thus, shouldn't need to rely so heavily on that training.

Just a thought from a guy who isn't military.

I believe Bad soldiers are created when military soldiers are in extreme demand. When the soldiers are pretty much just drafted and taught how to shoot a gun.Bad soldiers are also usually using outdated weapons and old uniforms. The more powerful nations would have more time to create well trained soldiers. If i were personally a dictator i would pretend i was a neutral country but after my empire and military force grew stronger i would attack. First the Less trained soldiers. I believe Bad solders are sort of like a complete last resort because they would actually make other countries want to attack you because they know you are extremely desperate and weak

Technology has limits.. Especially when facing a determined and ingenious opponent . It also tends to make people lazy and complacent when they rely on it too much.. Two groups in modern history who have done well against technologicaly superior opponents are vietnam and now afghanistan neither have the tech the u.s does yet both do quite well .. Vietnam beat the u.s in 75 and in the 80s the afghans beat the soviets along with doing the same against the u.s today..